G.R. No. 101741 . March 23, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADLY HUBILO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Adly Hubilo was convicted of multiple murder and frustrated murder. The prosecution’s case, as established during trial, was that on August 18, 1988, Hermogenia Cacayurin, Cesario Antonio, and Ferdinand Gamiz were riding a tricycle when they were ambushed near the cemetery of Nagcuralan. Ferdinand Gamiz, who was wounded, managed to escape. He identified Adly Hubilo as the assailant shortly after the shooting, first to barangay tanod Lolito Balbas and his father Roberto Gamiz, and later to Patrolman Eddie Damaso while in an ambulance. He reiterated this identification in court. The victims Cesario Antonio, Rogelio Antonio, and Hermogenia Cacayurin died from multiple gunshot wounds. Appellant Hubilo interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in Sinimbaan, a 30-minute walk away, at the time of the incident, and was supported by his relatives. He also questioned the admissibility of Ferdinand Gamiz’s ante-mortem statement (Exhibit “A”) and the trial court’s disregard of the negative paraffin test results on his hands.

ISSUE

The primary issues resolved by the Supreme Court were: (1) whether appellant’s right to preliminary investigation was violated; (2) whether the ante-mortem statement of Ferdinand Gamiz was admissible as part of the res gestae; (3) whether the negative paraffin test results exculpated appellant; (4) whether the testimony of the lone eyewitness Ferdinand Gamiz was credible and sufficient for conviction; and (5) whether the defense of alibi could prevail over positive identification.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment with modifications. It held:
1. Appellant waived his right to preliminary investigation by expressly waiving it, applying for bail, submitting to arraignment, and proceeding to trial without questioning the irregularity via certiorari.
2. The ante-mortem statement (Exhibit “A”) of Ferdinand Gamiz was admissible as part of the res gestae. The shooting was a startling occurrence, the statement was made immediately after while he was wounded in the ambulance before he could reflect and contrive, and it related directly to the occurrence and the identification of appellant as the assailant.
3. Negative paraffin test results are not conclusive evidence that a person did not fire a gun, as residue can be avoided by using gloves, covering hands, or washing afterwards.
4. The testimony of the lone eyewitness, Ferdinand Gamiz, was credible and sufficient for conviction. No ill motive was shown; his testimony was positive, straightforward, and delivered spontaneously. Minor inconsistencies (e.g., his description of the firearm) did not impair his credibility and even enhanced it by negating coaching. His initial reluctance to identify the assailant to Patrolman Damaso did not affect his credibility, as he had already identified appellant twice before and such reluctance is common.
5. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witness. Alibi is inherently weak, especially when established only by the accused and his relatives. Appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, given the short distance (a 30-minute walk) between Sinimbaan and Nagcuralan.
6. The crimes committed were three separate murders qualified by treachery, as appellant employed a mode of attack in a secluded area that ensured the execution without risk to himself from any defense the victims might make. The evidence showed separate acts/shots were directed at each deceased victim. He was also guilty of frustrated murder for the shooting of Ferdinand Gamiz.
The Court MODIFIED the penalty, sentencing appellant to three penalties of reclusion perpetua for the three murders and an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years for frustrated murder. The indemnity to the heirs of each deceased victim was increased to P50,000.00.